<!doctype html>

<html>
    <head>
        <meta charset="UTF-8" />
        <title>Larry C. Bernard, Ph.D. - Motivation and Evolutionary Psychology Laboratory</title>
        <link href="main-stylesheet.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
        <script type="text/javascript" src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.5.1.min.js"></script>
        <script type="text/javascript" src="main-javascript.js"></script>
    </head>
    <body>
        <!-- Holder for the main page elements -->
        <div id="content" class="content">
            
            <!-- Contains the site banner -->
			<a name="top"></a>
            <div id="banner" class="banner">
            </div>
            
            <!-- Contains the navigation links -->
            <div id="navBar" class="navBar">
                <span>Home</span>
                <span>Biography</span>
                <span>Research</span>
                <span>Publications</span>
                <span>Gallery</span>
            </div>
            
            <!-- Copy-pastable story element -->
            <div id="story1" class="story">
                <div id="title1" class="storyTitle">Publications</div>
                <p>The following publications in referred journals are listed chronologically by area / subject.</p>
				<p>Various abstracts are available for select articles; click on the "Abstract" button by an article to reveal its abstract.</p>
            </div>
			
			<div id="story2" class="story">
                <div id="title1" class="storyTitle">Motivation and Individual Differences</div>
				
                <div class="articleWithAbstract">
                	Bernard, L. C. (In press). Evolved individual differences in human motivation.  In R. Ryan (Ed.), <em>Oxford Handbook of Motivation.</em> UK: Oxford University Press.
	                <div class="abstract">Three social science approaches – evolutionary psychology, behavioral ecology, and behavioral genetics – share the metatheory of evolution. 
					They also suggest several mechanisms that may account for heritable individual differences in personality and motivation including stabilizing selection,
					fluctuating selection, trade-offs, balancing selection, life history theory, and behavioral syndromes. These mechanisms are discussed as possible explanations 
					for individual differences in the five factor model of personality and in a new theory of human motivation. The theory postulates that 15 latent motive dimensions 
					evolved in humans to facilitate behavior in five social domains. Trade-offs that, in combination with fluctuating and balancing selection, might have maintained
					individual differences in motive phenotypes are described. The reliability and validity of a method to assess individual differences in the strength of these
					motive dimensions is also discussed.</div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C. (2010). Motivation and personality: Relationships between putative motive dimensions and the five factor model of personality. <em>Psychological Reports, 106,</em> 613-631.
                    <div class="abstract">There are few multidimensional measures of individual differences in motivation available.
					The Assessment of Individual Motives-Questionnaire is one such device that assess 15 putative dimensions of motivation. 
					The dimensions are based on evolutionary theory and preliminary evidence suggests the motive scales have good psychometric properties. 
					The scales are reliable and there is evidence of their consensual validity (convergence of self-other ratings) and behavioral validity 
					(relationships with self-other reported behaviors of social importance). Additional validity research is necessary, however, especially 
					with respect to current models of personality. The present study tested two general and 24 specific hypotheses based on proposed evolutionary 
					advantages/disadvantages and fitness benefits/costs of the five factor model of personality together with the new motive scales in a sample 
					of N = 424 participants (mean age = 28.75, SD = 14.60). Results were largely supportive of the hypotheses. These results support the validity 
					of new motive dimensions and increase understanding of the five factor model of personality.
				    </div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C. (2009). Consensual and behavioral validity of a measure of adaptive Individual differences dimensions in human motivation. <em>Motivation and Emotion, 33,</em> 303-319.
                    <div class="abstract">Data from three sources – an initial self sample (N = 108) and a friend sample (N = 103) and relative sample (N = 103) 
					recruited by self sample participants – were used to test the consensual and behavioral validity of new individual differences measures of 15 
					dimensions of motivation represented in the Assessment of Individual Motives-Questionnaire (AIM-Q). AIM-Q scores for all three samples converged 
					and hypotheses of their predicted relationships with reports of the occurrence and frequency of a variety of behavior criteria of some importance 
					were supported in most cases. These results support the utility of the AIM-Q as a new measure of motives in purposeful human behavior.	
				    </div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C. (2008). Individual differences in vigor and deliberation: Development of two new measures from an evolutionary psychology theory of human motivation. <em>Psychological Reports, 103,</em> 243-270.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary</em>. Three studies (total N = 403 participants; M Age = 31.1 years; SD = 13.8) are reported on the development, 
					psychometric properties, and convergent and discriminant validities of two individual differences dimensions: <em>Vigor</em>, constructive arousal 
					and energy that drives the general intensity of behavior and <em>Deliberation</em>, prudence in the delay of immediate action and consideration of 
					competing motives, emotions, and consequences of action that promotes convergence of behavior toward socially desirable outcomes. These dimensions 
					are part of Bernard, Mills, Swenson, and Walsh’s (2005) evolutionary psychology theory of human motivation. Results suggest that Vigor and Deliberation 
					scales have reasonably good psychometric properties and may aid advances in motivation research from an evolutionary perspective.
				    </div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C., Mills, M., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2008).  Measuring Motivation Multidimensionally: Development of the Assessment of Individual Motives-Questionnaire [AIM-Q]. <em>Assessment, 15</em>, 16-35.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary</em>. We report the development of the Assessment of Individual Motives-Questionnaire (AIM-Q), a new instrument 
					based on an evolutionary psychology theory of human motivation. The Aim-Q provides multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) assessment of individual 
					differences on 15 motive scales. A total heterogeneous sample of N = 1251 participated in eight studies that evaluated the homogeneity, 
					internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and MTMM convergent and discriminant validities of the AIM-Q’s three methods. These studies 
					generally support the overall strategy of assessing individual differences in multiple evolutionary-based motives with multiple methods. Additional 
					validity studies are underway and, when validated further, the AIM-Q may offer a promising option for evolutionary psychologists and behavioral 
					geneticists who wish to incorporate individual differences into their research but have had to use existing self-report measures of personality 
					which were not designed for such a purpose. It may also offer clinical and counseling psychologists an additional approach to personality measures 
					for the prediction of behavior.
				    </div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C. (2007). Sex and motivation: Differences in evolutionary psychology-based motives. In P. W. O’Neal (Ed.), <em>Motivation of Health Behavior</em> (pp.65-84). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary</em>. A new evolutionary psychology theory of human motivation posits that 15 motives guide behavior 
					in purposeful directions. The Assessment of Individual Motives-Questionnaire (AIM-Q) provides multidimensional measurement of individual 
					differences on these motives with a multimethod format. Prior research has largely supported the AIM-Q’s reliability and validity as well 
					as the theory on which it is based. The present study examines sex differences in the15 motives. Data on sex differences are analyzed in 
					a sample of N = 737 participants, some of whom took part in prior studies of the AIM-Q’s psychometric properties. Sexual selection – mates 
					selecting mates on the basis of variations in behavior and appearance – is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory, and it is expected to 
					result in significant differences in the strengths of motives in males and females that are consistent with evolutionary psychology theory.
					</div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C. (2007). Assessing Individual Differences in Motivation: Convergent Validity of the Assessment of Individual Motives - Questionnaire [AIM-Q] and Measures of Aggression, Cognition, Playfulness, and Sexuality. <em>Individual Differences Research, 5,</em> 158-174.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary</em>. A new evolutionary psychology theory of human motivation posits that motive adaptations guide behavior in 
					purposeful directions. The Assessment of Individual Motives-Questionnaire (AIM-Q; Bernard, Mills, Swenson, & Walsh, 2006) is a new 
					objective multitrait-multimethod measure of individual differences in the strength of 15 motives derived from this theory: 
					Affection, Aggression, Altruism, Appearance, Conscience, Curiosity, Health, Legacy, Material, Meaning, Mental, Physical, Play, 
					Safety, and Sex. The present study investigates the validity of individual AIM-Q motives in a sample of N = 167. Hypothesized relationships 
					between certain of these motives and existing reliable and valid measures of aggression, cognition, playfulness, and sexuality are tested. 
					Results generally support the construct validity of some of the motive scales.
					</div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C., Mills, M., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2005). An Evolutionary Theory of Human Motivation. <em>Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131,</em> 129-184.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary</em>: Briefly reviews psychology’s historical, competing perspectives on human motivation and proposes a 
					new comprehensive theory. The new theory is based on evolutionary principles as introduced by Darwin (1859), Hamilton (1964, 1996), 
					Trivers (1971, 1972), and Dawkins (1989) and unifies biological, behavioral, and cognitive approaches to motivation. The theory is 
					neuropsychological and addresses conscious and nonconscious processes that underlie motivation, emotion, and self-control. The theory 
					predicts a hierarchical structure of motives that are measurable as individual differences in human behavior. These motives are related 
					to social problem domains (Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003) and each is hypothesized to solve a particular problem of human inclusive fitness.
					</div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C., Walsh, R. P., & Mills, M. (2005). The Motivation Analysis Test: An historical and contemporary evaluation. <em>Psychological Reports, 96,</em> 464-492.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary</em>: This is an historical review and contemporary empirical evaluation of the <em>Motivation Analysis Test</em> 
					(MAT; Cattell, Horn, Sweney, & Radcliffe, 1964), one of the first instruments to take a psychometric approach to the assessment of 
					motivation. Reviews were quite positive (e.g., Alker, 1972; Austin, n.d.; Comrey, 1972), but the MAT is now over 50 years old. Nevertheless, 
					it employs innovations in measurement not widely used in objective measurement then or now: (1) subtests with different formats; (2) disguised items; 
					(3) speeded administration procedures; and (4) ipsative format and scoring procedures. These issues are discussed and a contemporary sample (N = 360) 
					obtained to evaluate the MAT in light of its innovative characteristics.
					</div>
				</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C., Walsh, R.P., & Mills, M. (2005). Ask Once, May Tell: Comparative validity of self-rating and objective measurement of the “Big Five” personality factors. <em>Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 2,</em> 40-57.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary</em>: Compared validities of single item self-ratings and multiple item questionnaire scores measuring the Big-Five 
					personality domains. Scores on the five domain scales of the<em> NEO Personality Inventory-Revised</em> (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) – Neuroticism, 
					Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness – were obtained from149 participants who also provided self-ratings on descriptions 
					of the same domains. Acquaintances provided criterion ratings of the participants on the NEO PI-R Form R. Multiple regression analyses indicated 
					that participants’ domain self-ratings and NEO PI-R scores accounted for equivalent amounts of variance in criterion ratings of Neuroticism and 
					Conscientiousness. However, participants’ NEO PI-R scores accounted for significantly more variance in criterion ratings of Extraversion, Openness, 
					and Agreeableness scores than single-item self ratings. Implications are discussed.
                    </div>
                </div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C., & Walsh, R. P. (2004). Socially desirable and non-purposeful responding on The Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory-Revised. <em>Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 1,</em> 4-16.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary</em>: Explores socially desirable and non-purposeful responding on the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality 
					Inventory – Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992), an objective measure of the “Big Five” personality traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, 
					Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The NEO PI-R’s three validity-check items were examined in relation to the traditional, lengthier 
					validity scale of another objective personality measure, the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1999). In a sample of 237 university 
					students, none of the NEO PI-R’s validity check items were significantly correlated with the PRF Desirability. In addition, the PRF Infrequency 
					scale (non-purposeful responding) was significantly correlated with one, and the Desirability scale with four NEO PI-R scales, and PRF 
					Desirability and Infrequency scores jointly predicted Conscientiousness scores. The implications are discussed and, interestingly, may provide 
					support for the Conscientiousness scale construct, because four of five NEO PI-R scales may be obliquely related by a higher-order factor 
					of social desirability.
                    </div>
                </div>
			</div>
				
				
			<div id="story3" class="story">
            <div id="title3" class="storyTitle">Factors Affecting the Validity of Subject Pool Research</div>
				
				<div class="articleWithAbstract">
					Bernard, L. C., & Walsh, R. P. (2002). Variations in a university subject pool as a function of earlier or later participation and self-report: A replication and extension.<em> Psychological Reports, 91,</em> 553-570.
                    <div class="abstract"><em>Summary.</em> – The present study replicated and extended earlier research on temporal sampling effects in 
					university subject pools. Data were obtained from 236 participants in a university subject pool during a 15-wk. semester. Without 
					knowing the purpose of the study, participants self-selected to participate earlier (Weeks 4 and 5; n = 105) or later (Weeks 14 and 15; n = 131). 
					Three hypotheses were investigated: (1) that the personality patterns of earlier and later participants on the NEO Personality Inventory – 
					Revised (NEO PI-R) and the Personality Research Form (PRF) differ significantly, with earlier participants scoring higher on PRF scales 
					reflecting social responsibility and higher on NEO PI-R Conscientiousness and Neuroticism scales; (2) that there are significant differences 
					between male and female earlier and later participant samples compared to the NEO PI-R and PRF scale’s male and female normative samples; 
					and (3) that earlier participants will have higher actual SAT scores and GPAs. We also investigated whether participant’s foreknowledge that we 
					would obtain their actual SATs and GPAs would have an affect on the accuracy of their self-report. The first hypothesis was not supported when 
					we were not able to replicate the results of prior research, but the second hypothesis was supported by the current study. The third hypothesis 
					was supported: earlier participants had higher actual high school GPA, college GPA, and SAT Verbal scores. In addition, later participants 
					significantly over reported their scores. Foreknowledge that we would obtain actual SAT and GPA scores did not affect the accuracy of self-report.
                    </div>
                </div>
				
				<div class="articleStub">
					Bernard, L. C. (2000). Variations in a subject pool as a function of earlier or later participation. <em>Psychological Reports, 86,</em> 659-668.
				</div>
				
            </div>
			
			
			<div id="story4" class="story">
            <div id="title4" class="storyTitle">Health Psychology</div>
                
				<div class="articleStub">
				    Bernard, L. C., Hutchison, S., M. P., Lavin, A., & Pennington, P. (1996). Ego-strength, hardiness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, and maladjustment: Health-related personality constructs and the ‘Big Five’ Model of Personality. <em>Assessment, 3,</em> 115-131. 	
				</div>
				
			</div>
			
			
			<div id="story5" class="story">
            <div id="title5" class="storyTitle">Clinical Neuropsychology</div>
			
				<div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., McGrath, M.J., & Houston, W. (1996).The differential effects of simulated malingering, closed head injury, and other CNS pathology on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Support for the “Pattern of Performance” hypothesis. <em>Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11,</em> 231-245.</div>
	
	            <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., McGrath, M.J., & Houston, W. (1993). Discriminating between simulated malingering and closed head injury on the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. <em>Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 8,</em> 539-551.</div>
	
	            <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., & Belinsky, D. (1993). Hardiness, stress, and maladjustment: effects on self-reported retrospective health problems and prospective health center visits. <em>Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8,</em> 97-110.</div>
	
	            <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., Houston, W., & Natoli, L. (1993). Malingering on neuropsychological memory tests: Potential objective indicators. <em>Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49,</em> 45-53.</div>
	
	            <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (1991). The detection of faked deficits on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test: The effect of serial position. <em>Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 6,</em> 81-88.</div>
	
	            <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (1990). Prospects for faking believable memory deficits on neuropsychological tests and the use of incentives in simulation research.  <em>Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12,</em> 715-728.</div>
	
	            <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., & Fowler, W. (1990). Assessing the validity of memory complaints: Performance of brain-damaged and normal individuals on Rey's task to detect malingering.  <em>Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46,</em> 432-436.</div>
	
	            <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., & Wood, J. (1990). Further observations on the multidimensional aspects of masculinity-femininity: The Multidimensional Sex Role Inventory - Revised.  In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), <em>Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences</em> [Special Issue].  <em>Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5,</em> 206-224.</div>
	
	            <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (1989). Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test performance of Black, Hispanic, and White young adult males from poor academic backgrounds.  <em>Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4,</em> 267-274.</div>

			</div>
			
			
			<div id="story6" class="story">
            <div id="title6" class="storyTitle">Sex Roles and Sexual Orientation</div>
			
                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., & Wood, J. (1990). Further observations on the multidimensional aspects of masculinity-femininity: The Multidimensional Sex Role Inventory - Revised.  In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), <em>Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences</em> [Special Issue].  <em>Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5,</em> 206-224.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L.C. (1984). The multiple dimensions of sex role  identification: Rapprochement of traditional and bidimensional constructs.  <em>Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40,</em> 986- 991.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L.C. (1982). Sex role factor identification and sexual preference of men.  <em>Journal of Personality Assessment, 46,</em> 292-299.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L.C. (1981). The multidimensional aspects of masculinity-femininity.  <em>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,</em> 797-802.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L.C. (1980). Multivariate analysis of new sex-role formulations and personality.  <em>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,</em> 323-336.</div>
			
			</div>
			
			
			<div id="story7" class="story">
            <div id="title7" class="storyTitle">Books and Chapters Chronologically</div>
			
                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (in press). Evolved individual differences in human motivation. In R. Ryan (Ed.), <em>Oxford handbook of motivation.</em> UK: Oxford University Press.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2007). Sex and motivation: Differences in evolutionary psychology-based motives. In P. W. O’Neal (Ed.), <em>Motivation of Health Behavior</em> (pp.65-84). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., & Krupat, E. (1994). <em>Health psychology: Biopsychosocial factors in health and illness.</em>  Ft. Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace.</div>

			</div>
			
			
			<div id="story7" class="story">
            <div id="title7" class="storyTitle">Symposia, Presentations, and Posters Chronologically by Area <br /><br />Motivation and Individual Differences</div>
			
                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2010, May). <em>Classical theories in motivational science: The under- and over-appreciated.</em> Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation, Boston, Massachusetts.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2010, May). <em>Reliability and validity of a new resource allocation measure to assess individual differences in evolved human motivation.</em> Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation, Boston, Massachusetts.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2009, May).  <em>Motivation Science: Foundations and Future.</em> Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation, San Francisco, CA.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2008, May). Evolutionary Psychology, Individual Differences, and Motivation: A Rapproachment. In L. C. Bernard & W. G. Graziano (Chairs), <em>Personality and Individual Differences.</em> Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation, Chicago, Illinois.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2007, June). Sex and age differences on evolutionary psychology-based individual differences motives in a U.S. census conforming stratified sample. In R. Thornhill (Chair), <em>Personality and Individual Differences.</em> Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Williamsburg, Virginia.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2007, May). Advances in the measurement of individual differences-based human motives. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, D.C..</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2006, March). The Assessment of Individual Motives-Questionnaire [AIM- Q]: Evaluation of a New Multitrait-Multimethod Instrument. In E. Handler (Chair), <em>Innovations.</em> Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment, San Diego, CA.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2006, April). Human motives: Two reliable methods of assessment. In L. C Bernard (Chair), <em>Evolutionary Psychology and the Development of the Multitrait-Multimethod Measurement of Human Motives.</em> Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Palm Springs, CA.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C., Mills, M., Swenson, L. & Walsh, R. P. (2005, June). An evolutionary theory of human motivation: Adaptive mental mechanisms and behavior. In R. Aunger (Chair), <em>Motivation</em>. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Austin, Texas.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L.C., Mills, M., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2005, June). <em>The Assessment of Individual Motives Questionnaire [AIM-Q]:</em> Reliability and preliminary validity. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Austin, Texas.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L.C., Mills, M., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2005, April). <em>The multidimensional measurement of human motives: Assessment of Individual Motives Questionnaire [AIM-Q].</em> Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Portland, Oregon.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L. C. (2004, April). Cognition and motivation. In L. C. Bernard (Chair), <em>Integrating perspectives: Toward a new theory of human motivation.</em> Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Phoenix, Arizona.</div>

                <div class="articleStub">Bernard, L.C., Mills, M., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2004, May). <em>The evolution of human motivation: Measurable individual differences derived from adaptive mental mechanisms.</em> Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Chicago, Illinois.</div>

			</div>
			
			
			<div id="story7" class="story">
            <div id="title7" class="storyTitle">Research Methodology</div>
			
                <div class="abstractStub">Bernard, L.C. (2003). <em>Just ask, may tell: Is self-report of personality traits valid?</em> Western Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.</div>
			
			</div>
            
            <script type="text/javascript">
            // Format the navBar, passing the div and width
            $(main.createNav("navBar", 800));
			
			// Add the "go to top" buttons on each story heading
            $(main.addTop("storyTitle", "top"));
			
			// Set up the collapsable abstracts
			$(main.addAbstracts("articleWithAbstract"));
            
            // Set up the snazzy story element effects
            $(".content").load($(main.setUpStories()));
            </script>
            
        </div>
    </body>
</html>